Legal Arguments/Issues: The core issue revolved around the correct interpretation of Section 29 of the Wildfire Regulation under the Wildfire Act, specifically whether Tolko Industries Inc. should bear the cost of fire control for a wildfire sparked by their debris burning practices.

Held: The Court of Appeal granted Tolko leave to appeal. The appeal was considered arguable due to the lack of appellate guidance on the interpretation issue and the significant implications for the forestry industry. The key question was whether Tolko's actions were willful under the terms of the regulation, impacting liability for fire control costs.

Background:

• Incident: Tolko conducted debris burning as part of its forestry operations, which led to a "holdover fire" resulting in a significant wildfire in April 2016 near Nazko, B.C.
• Financial Implications: The initial cost recovery order imposed on Tolko by the Deputy Fire Centre Manager amounted to $343,495.20, which the Forest Appeals Commission initially overturned, only for it to be reinstated by a Supreme Court chambers decision.
• Regulatory Interpretation: The legal dispute centered on whether the fire control costs arose from activities exempt under Section 29 of the Wildfire Regulation, which Tolko argued should not apply due to their non-willful contribution to the fire's spread.

Costs/Award: The outcome of the appeal would determine whether Tolko must pay the substantial cost recovery amount. The Court did not finalize the award in the appeal grant but reinstated the need for a substantive appellate review to resolve the regulatory interpretation disputes. No amount specified in the document.